One nano-SIM to rule them all: Apple submission approved as standard

The ETSI decision will open the door for thinner and more capable phones.

Apple wants to put old and busted SIMs in a landfill and replace them with a newer, smaller nano-SIM.

The nano-SIM design proposed by Apple has been approved by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), opening the door for the creation of even smaller SIM cards and the continued shrinking of smartphone hardware. ETSI announced its decision on Friday morning, choosing Apple's submission over proposals from Motorola, RIM, and Nokia.

The new SIM card design is the fourth form factor (4FF) and is 40 percent smaller than the micro-SIM that is currently popular in today's cell phones. The exact dimensions of the nano-SIM will be 12.3mm wide, 8.8mm high, and 0.67mm thick (0.48" x 0.35" x 0.03"), according to ETSI. And, when it hits the market, it will be packaged so that it's backwards compatible with slots designed to fit the current micro-SIM. This will enable the new SIM to work with older handsets while phone manufacturers work to develop newer hardware that can take advantage of the smaller dimensions.

"Today's SIM card designs take up a significant amount of space inside a mobile device," ETSI said in a statement. "This space is more and more valuable in today's handsets which deliver an ever-increasing number of features."

Although Apple's design had the support of a number of European cell carriers, the competition among the companies was quite fierce. RIM, Nokia, and Motorola all argued that their own designs would cause less damage to a handset when inserted, therefore making them superior to Apple's design. Nokia even went so far as to say that it would refuse to license Apple's standards-essential patents if it won.

"We believe that Apple is mis-using the standardization process, seeking to impose its own proprietary solution on the industry and using ETSI merely to rubber stamp its proposal, rather than following established principles and practices," Nokia said in a statement in March of this year. "We have informed ETSI that, if Apple's proposal is selected, then Nokia will not license its relevant patents to that standard."

This was despite the fact that Apple wrote in a letter to ETSI that it would offer royalty-free licenses for its nano-SIM design.

Still, Apple did end up making some changes to its design last month in response to the controversy, as did RIM and Motorola. In fact, both sides ended up inching toward each other so much with their modifications that Apple's newly approved design is only different from RIM/Motorola's in minuscule ways. Both 4FF SIMs are the same dimensions on the outside, but RIM/Motorola's differs because it has a notch that would allow handsets to use "push-push" designs instead of sliding trays for the SIM cards. ("Push-push" allows you to push the SIM into the slot, and then push it again in order to get it to pop out.) (Update: this paragraph originally stated that Apple's design was the one with the notch, which was backwards. It has since been corrected.)

ETSI didn't specifically name Apple as the winner in its announcement on Friday, but as noted by Macworld, the winner of the ETSI decision was identified by a member of the committee, Giesecke & Devrient. ETSI has also declined to comment on how the decision was made, which is unfortunate since many argue that the notched design would have been superior to the tray design. "We now have an ETSI standardized format for 4FF," the group said in a statement to The Verge. "It's no longer a question of one company or another, the industry has collectively made a decision."

As for what the decision means for consumers, some will care about the shrinking SIM specifications and most others will remain completely oblivious. What most consumers will see in the coming years will be smaller and thinner handsets—as we know from various teardowns of popular smartphones, manufacturers tend to pack them as tightly as they can with components in order to keep physical size to a minimum. A 40-percent-smaller SIM means phone manufacturers can continue to reduce handset bulk, or even add newer components that might need a little more space.

As for Nokia, it seems the company has come around from its original position on Apple's design—sort of. "Nokia continues to believe that the selected nano-SIM proposal is technically inferior and not suitable for a number of applications, but the ETSI Smart Card Platform Technical Committee has now made its decision," the company said in a statement. "As Nokia believes that ETSI has taken steps to address Nokia's original concerns over the standardization process, we have advised ETSI that we are prepared to license any Nokia patents which are essential to implement the standard, on [fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory] terms."

Promoted Comments

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the behind.

Store employee carefully takes new SIM card out of package, about to put into phone. Customer opens store door and he looks up. A slight gust of air blows past the register, carrying away the SIM card.

The contents of the article don't follow the sources linked to by the article.

According to The Verge (whom you link), Apple was going with tray loading. RIM and Motorola were the ones pushing for a compromise design, similar in everything to Apple's, but with the notch for "push-push".

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the behind.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the ass.

I was just about the write the same. Even the micro-SIM has no practical purpose today other than lock-in and price differentiation. This is more of the same, but more physical standards will make it even harder to have universally compatible cards.

Btw. Where on earth does the subtitle for this story come from? Did someone just make that bullshit up?

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the ass.

Okay, that makes sense. I'm on Verizon (CDMA), as is basically everyone else in my county of residence, so I've never handled a SIM. I had no idea how small they actually were already, so that 40% figure seemed like a big deal.

Apple and others made an attempt to break away from a physical sim card and go to a software solution. This solution was implied to allow the owner of the device to select from a list of carriers they had contracts with dynamically without having to swap a physical sim.

If I remember correctly, the Nokia/Moto/RIM proposal is not backward compatible. I think that is an important feature for a lot of people who keep using older phones instead of getting the latest and greatest every 2 years.

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the behind.

iPad and iPhone have been introduced at a very regular schedule like clockwork, you are suggesting Apple will break out of they cycle and jump on the market for nano-SIM? How much first to market advantage did micro-SIM profited Apple? If Apple is going for lock-in, why go for the backward compatibility? I have a number of unlock phones that I swap around semi-frequently (from old Nokia candy bar to SE Xperia) and I will take backward compatibility over push-push any day.

Because in countries with multiple interoperable operators and phones (think most of the world), people do change SIMs between phones quite often. It's an acquired taste. Some do it to switch networks, even temporarily. Some load data only SIMs on their phones for any intense data use. Some load their SIM in a friend's phone because their battery is dead. Some do it when roaming for any extended period of time. Some do this so often that there's a market for dual and triple-SIM phones. And one of the least desirable features of the iPhone is it's SIM loading mechanism, precisely because it makes it harder to change SIMs than it should.

And before you say the SIM could be a simple file you yourself copy and load into your phone. A SIM is a hardware device precisely because it is supposed to be hard to clone. Cloning is supposed to be at least moderately hard, particularly if we're talking large scale cloning and distribution. A lot of infrastructure depends on this. No one wants easy to clone SIMs just as no one wants easy to clone credit cards. Especially now that SIM based auth is being applied to everything from network auth, banking (SMS tokens), NFC wallets, etc.

Going digital means you either make it hard to copy (and loose interchangeability), or make it easy to copy and distribute (and get rampant cloning). The solution for something that is easily interchangeable (so that a layperson can do it) and minimally hard to clone (so that a layperson can't do it) is a physical dongle of some kind. Unless you believe in the fantasy of "interoperable DRM", that is.

As someone born and raised in the USA, I'd like to ask Ars, and basically every publication, to stop condescending to Americans with conversions of units, e.g. from mm to inches. I think I can speak for most Americans, and certainly most Ars readers, in saying that we know what a freaking millimeter is, and all other SI units. They are taught in all American schools. Just publish whatever units the source material gives, and leave it at that. No conversion necessary.

PS: How many non-Americans out there think that Americans don't understand SI units? I'll bet that conversions shown in American publications add to a feeling of "stupid Americans".

This was despite the fact that Apple wrote in a letter to ETSI that it would offer royalty-free licenses for its nano-SIM design.

The part that kills me, is that when applying for the "standard" format for something, there can still be licensing involved...

Shouldn't "standard" be "Open Sourced"?Are networking companies being "licensed" the Wireless-n standard from a private company?Can Apple then revoke those licenses?Does this bother anyone else?

GSM have existed for how long? 20 or 30 years? Was it open-sourced? (As related patents start to expire, full featured open source implementation will eventually appear.) GSM didn't bother me, and neither does nano-SIM.

I have to say, I hate this ongoing SIM fragmentation. When I'm abroad, I go for the local prepaid SIM, since I don't want to pay ridiculous roaming fees. But now, I cannot insert my microsim in any feature phone, to keep my original number available by using another phone just for that. Now I have to buy an adapter just to be able to insert my microsim in a regular phone. It's not just the cost, it's the hassle of having to carry and think about lots of bits and pieces, just to be able to use 2 phones. And now they're introducing the 3rd form factor? Really?

This was despite the fact that Apple wrote in a letter to ETSI that it would offer royalty-free licenses for its nano-SIM design.

The part that kills me, is that when applying for the "standard" format for something, there can still be licensing involved...

Shouldn't "standard" be "Open Sourced"?Are networking companies being "licensed" the Wireless-n standard from a private company?Can Apple then revoke those licenses?Does this bother anyone else?

Apple has tons of FRAND encumbered patents in many patent pools. And they have always honored them. Unlike a couple others I can think of. And in all the legal wranglings they have reaffirmed their commitment to their FRAND patents.

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the behind.

Agreed. I am one of two people at work that provisions cell phones for users. We pretty much let our users select which cell phone they want. I have yet to see any manufacturer (other than Apple) using the micro-SIM.

As someone born and raised in the USA, I'd like to ask Ars, and basically every publication, to stop condescending to Americans with conversions of units, e.g. from mm to inches. I think I can speak for most Americans, and certainly most Ars readers, in saying that we know what a freaking millimeter is, and all other SI units. They are taught in all American schools. Just publish whatever units the source material gives, and leave it at that. No conversion necessary.

PS: How many non-Americans out there think that Americans don't understand SI units? I'll bet that conversions shown in American publications add to a feeling of "stupid Americans".

What about the other way around?You might now the conversion from mm to inches, but most of the rest of the world won't know the one from inches to mm.

I really hope that they went with RIM/Motorolla's proposed compromise, rather than Apple's proposal as it was. Apple's proposal did nothing to advance the capabilities of the SIM card, and was obviously designed with the intent that the user would never swap it out. Nokia, Motorola, and RIM's original proposals on the other-hand did not have backwards compatible pin layout, which is annoying for those of us who keep their phones for more than two years. The compromise design was the best of both worlds.

Agreed. I am one of two people at work that provisions cell phones for users. We pretty much let our users select which cell phone they want. I have yet to see any manufacturer (other than Apple) using the micro-SIM.

The new HTC one and the Nokia Lumia 900 and 710 use micro-sims just off the top of my head.

GSM have existed for how long? 20 or 30 years? Was it open-sourced? (As related patents start to expire, full featured open source implementation will eventually appear.) GSM didn't bother me, and neither does nano-SIM.

GSM is trademarked, owned by the GSM Association. From what I can find, there's no licensing structure, it's more about the standarization of the service's IP than the direction of finances.

Scannall wrote:

Apple has tons of FRAND encumbered patents in many patent pools. And they have always honored them. Unlike a couple others I can think of. And in all the legal wranglings they have reaffirmed their commitment to their FRAND patents.

They will honor their word, they always have.

I'm not saying that Apple's ready to pull the rug out, and that this is some play to build an evil monopolistic empire, I was just thinking that "licensing" of a "standard" seems counter-intuitive. Why choose a standard, if you have to pay to implement it? Wouldn't the largest provider naturally become the de-facto standard, had one not been chosen? Isn't it each company's best interest to have a standard, anyway (for interoperability)? How does this help the little guy trying to make a standards-controlled item?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that standards comittees meet, and decide these things, since it makes for price competition and increased innovation... I'm just more worried about a small, less known entity could "win the standard", cash in on their "licenses", and then yank the rug out, since it's a commonly accepted practice to have licensed standards.

Maybe I've been paranoid about the term "license" since the software world decided that we shouldn't own anything...

As someone born and raised in the USA, I'd like to ask Ars, and basically every publication, to stop condescending to Americans with conversions of units, e.g. from mm to inches. I think I can speak for most Americans, and certainly most Ars readers, in saying that we know what a freaking millimeter is, and all other SI units. They are taught in all American schools. Just publish whatever units the source material gives, and leave it at that. No conversion necessary.

PS: How many non-Americans out there think that Americans don't understand SI units? I'll bet that conversions shown in American publications add to a feeling of "stupid Americans".

Are you upset by currency conversion as well or is it limited to conversions of length?

As someone born and raised in the USA, I'd like to ask Ars, and basically every publication, to stop condescending to Americans with conversions of units, e.g. from mm to inches. I think I can speak for most Americans, and certainly most Ars readers, in saying that we know what a freaking millimeter is, and all other SI units. They are taught in all American schools. Just publish whatever units the source material gives, and leave it at that. No conversion necessary.

PS: How many non-Americans out there think that Americans don't understand SI units? I'll bet that conversions shown in American publications add to a feeling of "stupid Americans".

Are you upset by currency conversion as well or is it limited to conversions of length?

Are you upset by currency conversion as well or is it limited to conversions of length?

With currency I'd say it's better to provide both the source and the conversion, if possible. The source currency gives a sense of the availability of a product or service, in many cases. Saying something costs ¥29,900 suggests "Japanese market product, not available elsewhere" in a way that $382 does not.

(Actually, an ideal system would probably state everything in original units, and provide hovertext conversions for those who needed them.)

I'm wondering, if I remember right, Apple never wanted money for the whole nano-sim design. Instead, didn't they want it as a "You will be able to freely use our nano-sim design, but in turn you will agree to let us license one of your patents of our choice freely"? Or am I mistaken?

If I remember this right, then this could be a very dangerous weapon for Apple since they are suing so many other companies over patents and being able to suddenly go "Well since your using our nano-sim, which just happens to be the standard, you have agreed to let us license one of your patents for free. We'll just now license for free that patent your using to protect yourself with. And if not, you won't be able to use a industry wide standard, not a good move for you."

On the other hand, if Apple really is allowing the patent to be license for nothing at all then oh well.

Because in countries with multiple interoperable operators and phones (think most of the world), people do change SIMs between phones quite often.

And part of the security of the phone is in the SIM. When you enter your PIN to let the phone connect to the network that is authenticated by the SIM, not the phone. In many ways you can consider the SIM to be part of the mobile network which is located inside your phone. Which is why it's so convenient to be able to switch it out if needed. (It also makes other use cases possible, like letting your in car phone authenticate using the SIM in your phone. So you can use the in car cell radio instead of spending the phone battery. It would also be possible to enable similar scenarios with a tablet, if any of the new OSes actually supported it.)

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win

Am I the only one that think this reasoning is quite off target? The size of the complete phone isn't what's interesting, it's the size of the motherboard. If you look at this picture [http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/dCidpYqpnbZ2JiDS.medium] of the iPhone 4S motherboard, you'll see that the size of the micro-SIM is taking up about a quarter of the size of the motherboard and 100% of the width of the motherboard. And for what purpose?! A SIM card with a lock notch would further reduce the space required since the trey assembly would be gone too.

This report is really lacking very important details. The RIM/Motorola enhanced compromise version with the notch satisfies everything ETSI says in their press release, and the concerns that Apple had with their original design is fixed in their compromise. Couldn't it be THIS design that won?

Everyone is crying foul now since Evil Apple is supposedly fragmenting the SIM business. Consider this: Originally Nokia, RIM and Motorola actually suggested a design that was even smaller and had no backwards compatability mode. Apple's did [http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/17/3027724/rim-motorola-nokia-apple-4ff-nano-sim-compromise]

As someone born and raised in the USA, I'd like to ask Ars, and basically every publication, to stop condescending to Americans with conversions of units, e.g. from mm to inches. I think I can speak for most Americans, and certainly most Ars readers, in saying that we know what a freaking millimeter is, and all other SI units. They are taught in all American schools. Just publish whatever units the source material gives, and leave it at that. No conversion necessary.

PS: How many non-Americans out there think that Americans don't understand SI units? I'll bet that conversions shown in American publications add to a feeling of "stupid Americans".

Are you upset by currency conversion as well or is it limited to conversions of length?